What exactly is wrong with Communism? Watch

This discussion is closed.
MTR_10
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#141
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#141
(Original post by silverbolt)
Humans feel greed, hate, spite, envy well quicker before we feel love, compassion or mercy. We are not a nice people we are spiteful, cruel race who spend more money on how to kill than how to heal.

But then im a cynic with a very low opinion on the spieces i have to call my own.
No, love, empathy and compassion are humans most basic emotions, whereas greed, anxiety and hate are only created by the world around them.

We are fundamentally community orientated people corrupted and by the system we live in.
0
faber niger
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#142
Report 7 years ago
#142
(Original post by Hy~)
I disagree but I don't really care. My point was that the economy was socialist and nothing you said seems to argue against this. It was "run", yeh, by the bureaucrats in their ministries. That's what I was saying.
It was a top-down socialist model (e.g. significant public building programmes, state pension plan, nationalisation of many industries), with strong free-market tendencies within that (e.g. low income tax, low inflation, anti-union/ban on strikes). A little like how Hitler would hand-pick men to be his underlings, but would then have them fight against themselves for the top positions, so that, as he saw it, the best man would take the job. In a similar sense, there was a competitive capitalist economy within a centralist, socialist framework. So to say that just one label adequately characterises the Nazi economy doesn't capture the reality very well. Much of what they did was Keynsian.
0
MTR_10
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#143
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#143
(Original post by Radekal)
1. That's what I mean. If say, you have 10 pounds, at the moment, someone is receiving 5 while 5 others are receiving 1 each. In a Communist society, the 6 people would receive 1.7 or whatever. Surely the one who received 5 before would be like "hang on..." People are greedy.

2. How has HIV been caused by oppression? Examples, please.

3. If you tell the West, "you caused HIV to happen, so you have some of it", I doubt it would respond with "Sure, our conscience tells us to humbly receive this deadly and incurable disease"

And lastly, authorities. "Some are more equal than others". Ring a bell? Inevitably, you may eliminate the concept of money, but would you eliminate the human greed for power? I would think that any authorities put in place would grow to exploit everyone else. It's just how humans work.

Communism is a great idea, but just impossible to carry out, mostly due to human nature.
The person who previously received £5 would be the one who voted for the revolution in the first place, meaning his theory would be to share what he has in order to live a clean life.

2. The spread of HIV could be prevented. The West could have done more. They chose not because there was financial incentive for them to do so. Wealth creates oppression. Africa is starving and has no choice or options to solve its problems, and the West does nothing, even though there poverty is the responsibility of the West in the first place. That is oppression.

Why the need for authority?
0
JW92
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#144
Report 7 years ago
#144
(Original post by MTR_10)
Communism would not discourage from developing new ideas. The difference being that the new ideas would be offered (and supported by) the system. Rather than being used for individual gain.

Prosperity can be shared amongst everyone. Capitalism relies on the oppression of some for the prosperity of others.
Of course it would.

Example 1: Mr. Smith lives in a Capitalist society and he wants money to fund a higher than average quality of life. He works hard and comes up with a great product. People think this product would make their lives better so they give Mr. Smith money in exchange for his product. Mr. Smith is very happy because he has been rewarded for his brilliant idea. More and more people want Mr. Smith's brilliant product, so with his new money he now opens new shops and factories, employing more and more people and sharing out his wealth.

Example 2: Mr. Smith lives in a Communist society and he wants money to fund a higher than average quality of life. He has no way of doing this. So he doesn't bother to come up with any new ideas or products. People cannot buy a non-existant product to make their lives better. Mr. Smith cannot open new shops or factories and cannot give people jobs or money.
0
Oswy
Badges: 13
#145
Report 7 years ago
#145
(Original post by Hy~)
If you think because there were prices that there had to be capitalism then, just to let you know, prices that are dictated by the state aren't actually prices. I'm not talking about the general distorting of prices that occurs due to the state, the "prices" in Nazi Germany were laid down by state edict. They were, from the perspective of market actors, completely random. If you think that this was anything even approaching capitalism then you're quite clearly deluded.

The state took over production in Nazi Germany. That's what socialism is. Get over it. And covertly comparing me to Hitler, well done. I suppose you think that he and I are both fascists, right?
[sigh].

Socialism is most centrally 'about' organising society in a way that is substantively egalitarian, whether in political, social or economic terms. On this basis socialism needn't involve a 'state' at all. The extent to which the state is an element in socialism is only instrumental (by which I mean as an instrument to that end). It is a sophomoric error to equate socialism with statism. So, no, Nazism was not 'socialism' in the least, it did nothing with an aim towards, or result in, egalitarianism, whether political, social or economic.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I was comparing you to Hitler :confused:
MTR_10
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#146
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#146
(Original post by JW92)
Of course it would.

Example 1: Mr. Smith lives in a Capitalist society and he wants money to fund a higher than average quality of life. He works hard and comes up with a great product. People think this product would make their lives better so they give Mr. Smith money in exchange for his product. Mr. Smith is very happy because he has been rewarded for his brilliant idea. More and more people want Mr. Smith's brilliant product, so with his new money he now opens new shops and factories, employing more and more people and sharing out his wealth.

Example 2: Mr. Smith lives in a Communist society and he wants money to fund a higher than average quality of life. He has no way of doing this. So he doesn't bother to come up with any new ideas or products. People cannot buy a non-existant product to make their lives better. Mr. Smith cannot open new shops or factories and cannot give people jobs or money.
No.

Mr. Smith would in a communist society see what the people need, what they require and what would make their lives easier. He creates and suggests a product for this. Likewise others do the same, hence the quality of life improves for everyone in a straight line. In a communist society there is no desire for a higher than average quality of life. Why would there be?

In a capitalist society Mr. Smith steals the design for a superficial product that nobody really needs from a designer, forces it on people via media connections and aggressive marketing in order for them to believe they need the product. Profits from others who actually know how to make the product and who do actually make the product. Spends his time not actually doing much. Hence the failure of the concept 'work hard and you will be rewarded'.
0
ok_cub2008
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#147
Report 7 years ago
#147
(Original post by MTR_10)
If communism means abolishing the class system in favour of equality, then what exactly is wrong with it? Up until now, communism has always been associated with poverty. What if, a world superpower say America for example (or China in the future) resorts to communism. If Britain joins them (and the Commonwealth countries do as well) and the EU then pretty much over half of the world will live in communism. As this spreads, poverty in Africa will be abolished, extreme wealth will be dissolved into the system and the world will potentially stop fighting over wealth and individual gain. The world will be driven by 'the system' and not the 'individual'. New countries will open themselves up to the rest of the world. Borders will be opened and everyone will live as one.
Exactly. Some form of extreme socialism is the only system that is even close to providing sustainability.
0
slavetosociety
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#148
Report 7 years ago
#148
Tienanmen Square?
0
SirMasterKey
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#149
Report 7 years ago
#149
It's a nice idea in theory but impossible to put into true practise.
0
Radekal
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#150
Report 7 years ago
#150
(Original post by MTR_10)
The person who previously received £5 would be the one who voted for the revolution in the first place, meaning his theory would be to share what he has in order to live a clean life.

2. The spread of HIV could be prevented. The West could have done more. They chose not because there was financial incentive for them to do so. Wealth creates oppression. Africa is starving and has no choice or options to solve its problems, and the West does nothing, even though there poverty is the responsibility of the West in the first place. That is oppression.

Why the need for authority?
But my point is that the £5 person would not vote for the revolution. Can I point out that in Russia, surely a prime example of a Communist revolution, it was the starving poor who "voted", and not the wealthy, healthy Tsar. Why? Because revolutions are mainly caused by people who have nothing left to lose.

Ok, I get you, it could have been prevented. But, once again, the human greed prevailed. Remove greed from human nature and communism will become much more plausible.
0
MTR_10
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#151
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#151
(Original post by Radekal)
But my point is that the £5 person would not vote for the revolution. Can I point out that in Russia, surely a prime example of a Communist revolution, it was the starving poor who "voted", and not the wealthy, healthy Tsar. Why? Because revolutions are mainly caused by people who have nothing left to lose.

Ok, I get you, it could have been prevented. But, once again, the human greed prevailed. Remove greed from human nature and communism will become much more plausible.
That's my point. Human greed and desire (capitalism) will reach a point where it just hits a wall and there is nothing left to gain (financially and materialistically speaking). That is the point at which culture/ peace/ equality/ human well-being prevails and the communist ideology is truly embraced.
0
Radekal
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#152
Report 7 years ago
#152
(Original post by MTR_10)
That's my point. Human greed and desire (capitalism) will reach a point where it just hits a wall and there is nothing left to gain (financially and materialistically speaking). That is the point at which culture/ peace/ equality/ human well-being prevails and the communist ideology is truly embraced.
That point is a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooong way away. In my opinion, at least another tens of thousands of years, and that's optimistically speaking.
Sure, your point is perfectly valid once appropriate evolution of the human species takes place.
0
Dahut
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#153
Report 7 years ago
#153
Communism does not equal Stalin! Don't think the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, that's certainly not communism, more like state capitalism. Think the Paris Commune and the EZLN.
0
Shmeiks
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#154
Report 7 years ago
#154
In theory, nothing. In practice, everything.
0
Nepene
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#155
Report 7 years ago
#155
(Original post by MTR_10)
No, love, empathy and compassion are humans most basic emotions, whereas greed, anxiety and hate are only created by the world around them.

We are fundamentally community orientated people corrupted and by the system we live in.
Communist ideologies and socialist ideologies always assume that the people will behave in a much more kind and better way because otherwise it wouldn't work that well. They tend not to have much in practical steps to making people more kind and loving.

Communist countries are dictatorships of some sort generally, so there is far more chance for people to be greedy, hateful, anxious. A dictatorship is an unstable environment where a favour or a smile of someone above you can mean far more resources and benefits being allocated to you.

As such they tend to worsen hate and greed, and are pretty crappy systems at the core anyway.
0
Don John
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#156
Report 7 years ago
#156
(Original post by Democracy)
Are you incapable of reading sources, or do you wear your ignorance as a badge of pride?
Oooh come on you can do better than that I take it from your insult that you've conceded your argument.
0
planetearth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#157
Report 7 years ago
#157
(Original post by Aj12)
One small state? Thats all you offer?

This is hardly the same as a fully functioning country is it. As an example of communism working on a large scale thats pretty pathetic
The size of Kerala does not really matter.

It has a fairly large population of 33,000,000 compared to other states in the world.

The point I was trying to make is that when Communism is implemented fairly and in the correct manner, it can give absoloutely outstanding results for whole populations and can be an extremely successful system.

I was trying to remove that stereotype of "Tyranny" that people sometimes associate with it.
0
Oswy
Badges: 13
#158
Report 7 years ago
#158
(Original post by Nepene)
Communist ideologies and socialist ideologies always assume that the people will behave in a much more kind and better way because otherwise it wouldn't work that well...
It's probably correct to say that communists and socialists tend to believe that the kind of society a person lives in strongly shapes their behaviour patterns. If a society is organised in such a way that everyone is, as far as is practicable, treated equitably and has their most basic needs met, then we might well expect different patterns of behaviour to those where, say, people are treated according to how much (or little) money they've got, who they're related to or how well or poorly they do at competing for food, water, shelter, clothing and medicine (etc). Animals in cages behave, unsurprisingly, like animals in cages and to communists and socialists, capitalism is man's current cage. Maybe we could do away with the cage? Maybe we could, at least, make the cage less cage-like?
Dahut
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#159
Report 7 years ago
#159
(Original post by Woffles)
Bolded. This
The DOTP isn't a literal dictatorship!
0
MTR_10
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#160
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#160
(Original post by Oswy)
It's probably correct to say that communists and socialists tend to believe that the kind of society a person lives in strongly shapes their behaviour patterns. If a society is organised in such a way that everyone is, as far as is practicable, treated equitably and has their most basic needs met, then we might well expect different patterns of behaviour to those where, say, people are treated according to how much (or little) money they've got, who they're related to or how well or poorly they do at competing for food, water, shelter, clothing and medicine (etc). Animals in cages behave, unsurprisingly, like animals in cages and to communists and socialists, capitalism is man's current cage. Maybe we could do away with the cage? Maybe we could, at least, make the cage less cage-like?
This.

Unfortunately I've ran out of rep for the day.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (371)
37.29%
No - but I will (75)
7.54%
No - I don't want to (70)
7.04%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (479)
48.14%

Watched Threads

View All